One week after the White House launched a new debate over guns in America, the discussion is already running off the rails. Not only do the two sides disagree on the proper regulation of guns, they also disagree on what they are disagreeing over.

Consider the following passage from Wayne LaPierre, the head of the NRA, who spoke Tuesday in response to President Obama’s inaugural address.

Obama wants you to believe that putting the federal government in the middle of every firearm transaction — except those between criminals — will somehow make us safer. That means forcing law-abiding people to fork over excessive fees to exercise their rights. Forcing parents to fill out forms to leave a family heirloom to a loved one — standing in line and filling out a bunch of bureaucratic paperwork, just so a grandfather can give a grandson a Christmas gift. He wants to put every private, personal transaction under the thumb of the federal government, and he wants to keep all those names in a massive federal registry. There are only two reasons for that federal list of gun owners —to tax them or take them.

Obama has not proposed a federal gun registry, which is currently barred under federal law. But LaPierre’s words–part fact, part falsehood, part paranoia–require careful parsing.

First the background: On January 16, Obama proposed a number of new gun control measures, including a new requirement “to require background checks for all firearm sales, with limited, common-sense exceptions for cases like certain transfers between family members and temporary transfers for hunting and sporting purposes.” The existing background check system requires the buyers of guns from licensed dealers to have their identities checked against an FBI database, called the NICS, to make sure they are neither felons nor mentally unfit under federal law. No records of buyer names or identities are retained. Under the White House proposal, all gun sales, including flea market, gun show and private sale would have to include a NICS check.

But the White House has clearly said Obama wants to carve out an exception for “cases like certain transfers between family members.” Though the specifics have yet to be unveiled, the Christmas gift from grandpa to grandson that LaPierre describes is unlikely to require a background check for the grandson.

So why does LaPierre claim that Obama wants a national federal registry for guns?

A spokesman for the NRA points me to comments that Obama made as a state senator in 2001, in an interview with the Chicago Defender. “Too many of these guns end up in the hands of criminals even though they were originally purchased by people who did not have a felony,” Obama said then. “I’ll continue to be in favor of handgun law registration requirements and licensing requirements for training.”

There is no record that Obama ever proposed such a registry on the federal level. In fact, during his first national campaign in January of 2008, Obama was asked about a federal firearm registry during a debate, and he basically ruled it out.

Question: Senator Obama, when you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president?

Obama: I don’t think that we can get that done. But what I do think we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement.

The day after the President’s gun control proposal was released this month, the NRA’s lobbying wing posted a fact sheet about private gun sales and registration on its website. The fact sheet did not claim that Obama had proposed a federal firearm registry. But it did include this passage:

Is it reasonable to conclude that gun control supporters believe that subjecting all firearm sales to NICS is a necessary step in the direction of gun registration? And, if so, that they see registration as a prerequisite to the confiscation or some or all guns?

In 1976, the chairman of the National Council to Control Handguns—later renamed Handgun Control, Inc. and now known as the Brady Campaign—said: “The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition—except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors—totally illegal.”

In short, the NRA is making a slippery slope argument: If you allow the existing background check system to be expanded to private gun sales, then you are nearing a point where all gun owners could be registered, and all guns could be confiscated. Indeed some members of the Senate, most notably California‘s Dianne Feinstein, have sought to create registration systems for gun owners, though these plans have not been endorsed by Obama. The only problem is that LaPierre didn’t make a slippery slope argument on Tuesday. Instead he said the President, “wants to keep all those names in a massive federal registry,” a sentence that has nothing to do with the President’s proposals, but drives at the heart of fears among gun owners.

This sort of deception is common in national politics. Obama won reelection in part by falsely claiming that Mitt Romney wanted to outlaw abortion even in cases of rape and incest, even though Romney repeatedly said he supported allowing abortion in cases of rape and incest. But frequency does not make deception any less abhorrent.

One interesting side note: There is actually common ground between the NRA and the White House on the issue of expanding background checks. When I talked to NRA President David Keene about the possibility of expanding background checks to unlicensed dealers at gun shows, he was open to the possibility. According to the most recent study by the National Institute of Justice, about 4% of gun purchases in 1993 and 1994 came through gun shows and flea markets. Another 17% of guns were acquired from members of the family, and 12% came from friends or acquaintances. So requiring background checks at gun shows could be a starting point for compromise, but it would only affect a sliver of gun sales.

The White House has not yet spelled out how the friend-to-friend gun sale background checks would be handled, but has suggested that licensed dealers can act as middlemen. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms plans to send a letter to firearms dealers giving them guidance on the best practices for facilitating sales between two other parties.

That is what Hitler told the Jews in 1930's Germany. We know how registration works. It ALWAYS leads to confiscation and then genocide. So cut the BS. We know the democrats and RINO's want to destroy the People. History teaches us better than the public schools. Get it?

Regardless of where people stand on this issue (and for full disclosure purposes, I myself am a CCW licensee and strong supporter of gun rights), I'd like to send my appreciation to the article's author for presenting a fairly balanced opinion piece on this divisive issue.

There were several points in this article that presented themselves as a balanced approach to the truth (mentioning Mr. La Pierre's innaccurate accusations, whilst also mentioning President Obama's against Mr. Romney). Listing the motivations of various key players on both sides of the debate with accuracy was another indicator. In addition, it appears that the author did his homework and cited quotations properly.

It's quote refreshing to see an intelligently written piece in a firebrand debate, no matter it's stance. Well done sir, please keep up the good work.

No where in all of this hoopla do I see a single bit about going after the real drivers of gun violence, The Gangs. Maybe this is not Politically Correct, But if you take the firearms away from the Gang members Gun violence will drop precipitously. Most gang members have felony convictions, therefore are not eligible to legally own guns. But I guess this is far to common sense for the Gun Grabber radicals who are raising such a fuss. NO FAR BETTER to interfere in law abiding Citizens gun dealing

If I want to sell my property to my neighbor or a friend I should not have to go through a third party and a FFL to sell or even give a firearm to them. 2nd: registries have proven not to do anything for crime, so why waste the time, money and personal just so the government can track whose got what at every house. Ask England and Australia how their firearms got confiscated.

We have many laws in place now that end up being just a slap on the wrist and mostly ineffective. And please tell when when the government has actually followed its own laws? America trains and arms more people in this world than any other country. OUR government peddles guns out the backdoor all the time to foreign countries, extremist groups, etc.... Most of the wars we fought are against people we have armed and trained to a degree. And every time I purchase a weapon, I fill out a form that goes to a government agency. If you really think they don't collect and store that info, federal law or not, you're naive. Google admits that 2/3rd's of our emails get filtered through a government agency. You really think they will read our emails but not store info that filters through their database about weapons? Not a huge crazy conspiracy theorist at all..... I just use common sense.

First off, there is legitimacy to the "slippery slope" arguments. By bringing the question to light, the NRA can help the public to keep Obama accountable. Second, this article airs it as "does Obama WANT..." and then argues it with "what Obama does". Notice that Obama says "I don't think we can get that done". That's acknowledgement of a political reality, but it doesn't address what his ultimate goals (or "wants") are.

If you're gonna "fact check", then pick which fact you are going to check... and check it.

The argument among people who doesn't want to do anything is that hard long term projects don't yield perfect results so don't do them.

That defies of course all other countries that do similar things and yield good (not perfect) long term goals. When did USA become the can't do country? When it somehow benefits all citizens and doesn't perfectly line someones pockets?

Here is a look back at exactly what the Second
Amendment stated in its original version which makes it quite clear what the
Amendment intended and a simple and historically accurate solution to the
"gun problem":

What you people are missing is that there is no 'loophole' in background checks to begin with...

Federal law leaves whether private transfers need a background check to the states. Some states have implemented background check while others have not seen a need to.

The Department of Justice has even looked at the matter and, and determined that less than 5% of all 'crime guns' were purchased through private transfers.

The vast majority of criminal firearms are acquired through burglary and the use of 'straw purchasers', people with clean records who knowingly purchase a firearm for a prohibited person.

This is already a crime, but the police (specifically the BATFE) very rarely prosecutes these cases, so there is little deterrent.

Once again, the gun control lobby and it's media lapdogs would rather impose restrictive new laws on honest American citizens than actually enforce a law against criminals that we already have on the books.

I can understand LaPierre's concerns. After all, state governments require registration of motor vehicles, and hust look at all the confiscatory raids that have been staged on poor, innocent car owners trying to exercise their right of free movement under the Constitution. First they came for the cars, then the guns. Next they'll be confiscating stock certificaties, which of course have to be registered with the issuing companies. Eventually they'll confiscate all voters, since voters must register. Slippery slope indeed!

@MrObvious a lot of the people you're referring to ( myself included ) are okay with some changes being made. They just don't agree with the ones proposed. My usual response would be that banning and prohibition don't work. They haven't worked for any substance or product in history, but our government still does the same thing over and over.

@MrObvious Laws can do two things: inform people what is illegal, and decide on an appropriate punishment if the law is broken. What are those regulations and harsh penalties to a suicidal mass killer?

Adam Lanza broke gun laws written in 1938, 1968, 1986, and 1990, and that's just on the federal level. He also broke long standing laws against murder.

It is not that our laws are imperfect or it is too hard to legislate, it is that laws do not work for people intent on breaking them. If you get a 1994 ban reinstated, the one that was so ineffective during the Columbine years that it was allowed to sunset, will that stop the next mass killer? Do you believe the body count will never get as high, because some guns are now 'illegal'?

How many more ineffective laws will have to be passed before it is realized that students are still in jeopardy, and people start looking for a real solution?

@MrObvious I would like to see a Venn diagram correlating the percentage of people who are against any and all measure of gun registration/control with those who are for any and every type of abortion restriction.

Gun registration foes use the "you'll never be able to prevent every incident of gun violence, so why do anything?" argument. Abortion foes admit "we can't prevent every abortion, but we can prevent some by making it as hard as possible to get one."

I want to see how many people are able to make two contradictory arguments at once and not get a brain cramp.

@Spencer60The straw purchase is rarely prosecuted because it is close to impossible to prove. Think about it!. It is not against the law for a person who passes a background check to purchase a gun. It is NOT against the law for that person to trade/gift/sell/barter/loan the gun he bought. Private sells etc do not require a background check. In Fast & Furious, no prosecutor would take the cases when presented with a list of suspected straw purchasers by the border patrol agents in Phoenix, Az.

Here is what was in the Manchin/Toomey gun control and gun protection act. I would think a gun advocates dream. It was filibustered by the Senate and never voted on.

1. A fifteen year jail term for anyone that starts a gun
registry…expanded…already against the law to register a gun.

2. All states with concealed carry weapon laws would honor the concealed
weapons license from the other states.

3. Licensed dealers are protected from being sued if they sell a weapon (after
a background check) and it is used in a crime or to harm another. That
protection would be expanded to the individual seller

4. Background checks for gun show sales and internet sales would be required

5.The bill also reduced the amount of time a seller must wait for a response
from the background check system before proceeding with a weapon sale, from
three business days to 48 hours. After four years, when improvements to the
system
are in place, the background check would be required to clear in 24 hours.

6. Expansion of interstate sales. In some cases, the amendment loosened
restrictions on guns. It would have authorized interstate sales through
licensed dealers --currently limited to rifles and shotguns -- to include
handguns, and eased
other restrictions on sales across state lines. For example, active military
members would be allowed to buy firearms in their home states, not just where
they’re stationed.

7. Under current law, transfers between family, friends and
neighbors do not require background checks. You can give or sell a gun to your
brother, your neighbor, your co-worker without a background check. You can post
a gun for sale on the cork bulletin board at your church or your job without a
background check. That did not change.

8. It called for the creation of a
commission to study the causes of violence, including mental health, guns,
school safety and portrayals of violence in the media.

@Spencer60You're delirious and, apparently oblivious to the problems at hand.

Federal law leaves whether private transfers need a background check to
the states. Some states have implemented background check while others
have not seen a need to.

How do you fail to see this obvious loophole when some 40% of gun sales are conducted without any background check?

the use of 'straw purchasers', people with clean records who knowingly purchase a firearm for a prohibited person.

So we shouldn't bother solving this problem either? It can't be easily solved at the state level but it could be at the federal level by requiring background checks and keeping records of sales transactions.

@gysgt213 This shifts the debate, for sure, but not in a direction that most disagree with. The first thing people say is 'how do we keep guns away from criminals and people with mental problems?' If you are for using registration to ensure that guns only fall into the right hands, then you have to address this issue.

I can speculate where LaPierre was going with this (maybe hoping that in pulling in the first amendment, people would get his point about the second?), but I personally don't know how you can ensure registration, with this criteria in mind, without infringing on the first amendment. No rights should be violated, regardless of the amendment.

The simple fact is that while registration of cars is for taxation, the registration of firearms has never been about that.

No, when firearms registration is implemented, it has always , 100% of the time, led to confiscation within a few years.

Anyone who looks at history will see this pattern over and over again. Most recently the UK, Australia and S. Africa are the obvious examples, but the pattern goes back to pre-Colonial times.

Governments do not trust their citizens with arms and try and restrict them whenever possible. The founders saw this in British rule, and wanted to make it impossible for their new republic.

That is one of the reasons the Second Amendment is the only protected right to include the words 'shall not be infringed' in the verbiage.

However, if we were to run with your car example 'bobell'... how about this take on it?

A maniac in an F-150 runs a busload of school kids off the road.

The media bombards the public with horror stories on the thousands of death these vehicles cause each year. They talk about their use in crimes like robbery and 'drive by' shootings.

They conveniently forgetting to mention all the lives saved by vehicles, and the millions of miles traveled every year that are safe and crime free.

After much hysterical debate, it's decided that no one 'needs' a vehicle that big except the government, and passes a ban limiting new vehicle weights to less than 1,000 lbs, too light to push a bus around.

Existing vehicles are grandfathered, but can't be sold or transferred. Also, they must also be retrofitted with special gas tanks that will only let them drive 10 miles at a time.

Of course the new, 'safe', light weight vehicles are so flimsy they end up killing thousands of of people in accidents who would have survived otherwise. No one in the media reports on that because it would embarrass their friends in the 'car control' lobby.

Just like they don't report on how many people die of heart attacks and strokes each year in 'car free zones' because you have to wait for an authorized ambulance to transport anyone there to a hospital.

The final straw comes a few years later, when a lunatic runs over people in a car-free zone with his grandfathered Suburban.

Rather than looking at this as the isolated act of a madman, the press and politicians, not wanting to 'waste' a crisis, present it as a case against responsible car owners and again start a crusade against cars owners.

The public, ignorant and fearful, is stampeded into forcing their politicians to pass legislation immediately banning all vehicles that do not meet the current standards, which are also lowered to 700 lbs per car.

After a 90 day 'grace period', state and local police start raiding the houses of people whose registration data show they have offending vehicles, arresting them as felons.

That's the worst case story.

The best case one is where people realize that the inanimate object isn't the problem, it's the person behind it.

@12rmp123@MrObvious The 1994 ban was effective in slowing down the flow of guns into Mexico. Now there is no law against it, with the exception of the straw purchase...It is so impossible to prove one person is buying a gun for another to skirt the background check that no prosecutor would take any case presented to them by the border patrol agents.

Let me ask you this, if there is no background check, form 4473, or any other
record, where are they getting that 40% number from?

The answer is simple... they made it up.

That being said, some states do require all private transfers to go through a
dealer, while most others don't see the need.

Even the Department of Justice admits that less than 5% of the 'crime guns'
they trace lead back to private transfers. These transfers simply are not a
source of illegal firearms.

As for background checks stopping straw buyers, you don't seem to get how
this works. A criminal will find a person with a clean record, someone
who can PASS the background check.

They will give this person money and a description of what they want
purchased. The 'straw' buyer makes the purchase, then gives the firearm to the
felon.

This last part is a felony offense, but it's hard to prove and the lack of enforcement means that no straw buyer really worries about getting convicted, or
even arrested.

As for keeping sales transactions... why? What earthly good does that
serve?

If someone is stabbed, do they try and figure out where the knife can from?
In a hit and run, do they care about what dealership sold the driver that
car?

Registration is always, and I mean 100% of the time, followed up by
confiscation. It's the only purpose it serves. Just look at England, and
Ireland, and Australia, and South Africa... the list goes on and on.

Finally, as for why I can't see this as being a 'loophole', it's because it
isn't. The law was written this way on purpose, to protect the rights of honest citizens to.

It's doing the job quite well, by making sure any registration scheme is
useless, and by still doing a better job of keeping firearms out of criminal
hands than the ATF does.

If 40% of all sales were indeed private transfers, the world would be a much
safer place.

@Diecash1@Spencer60 The point is that it's almost nonsensical to make a law that can't really be enforced. What's to keep me from buying a gun, already have some, and selling it to a friend without a background check? Nothing. There's no way the ATF would be able to track private sales like that. The same reason pot is still around. The government can make whatever ludicrous laws they want, but they can't see everything and they never will. Even if a gun was tracked back to me from a crime, I would simply say the gun had been stolen. I wouldn't really do something like this, but I'm just showing how simple it would be to circumvent the law

If it were as easy to commit crimes with fire extinguishers as with firearms, then fire extinguishers should be registered too. No one complains when someone reports the license plate number on a car involved in a hit-and-run; it makes tracing the culprit a lot easier. If firearms were registered, it would be easier to trace the curlprit when a firearm is used in a crime. Even LaPierre acknowledges that lots of people use guns unlawfully. He calls such people "criminals."

That aside, Obama has said precisely nothing about a law requiring firearms registtration. It's just another of LaPierre's straw men.

@Spencer60@bobell This is already happening in New York. The new law 'registers' guns, and a bill set for a January 2014 vote calls for their surrender. They are not even being very coy about it anymore.

There are reports all the time on local news stations about horrendous motor vehicle accidents involving cars vs. school/tour buses, cars vs. motorcycles, SUVs or pickup trucks vs. smaller cars, cars vs. bicyclists or pedestrians, and no one has ever ever suggested taking heavy vehicles off the road. Never.

Paranoia is not a good basis for making an argument. It just makes you look like an idiot.

No, when firearms registration is implemented, it has always , 100% of the time, led to confiscation within a few years.

Uh, no. Plenty of states require a permit to purchase a gun, typically handguns, and many of those very same states require registration of those weapons and, despite your rhetoric, gun owners have not had their guns confiscated. Enjoy some reality with your paranoia.

There are currently more restrictions on the manufacture, purchasing, licensing, operation, and transfer of ownership of vehicles than there are for firearms. What amazes me is how tightly we regulate a means of getting from point A to B while a vocal minority of the population insists that we should be hands-off when it concern s a means of putting holes in living creatures. Doesn't make sense. None.

There have been huge public campaigns about the dangers of drunk driving and not wearing a seatbelt and "Unsafe at any speed" and exploding Pintos and whatnot. What did happen is that we got better vehicles and laws that dealt with people who drive irresponsibly.

Even with all this media attention, social activism, and regulation, The Gubbermint still isn't coming to take away our vehicles, m'kay?

@Spencer60 If the person is the problem, perhaps we should have a system whereby people who can't be trusted with firearms are prevented from acquiring them. We could, for example, require that all but some intra-family firearms transactions include a background check on the purchaser.

And please don't forget that there has been no suggestion by Obama that firearms be registered. You're targeting a straw man.

@outsider2011@Spencer60@gysgt213 I recommend against that line of argument. "If your doing nothing wrong then why keep it a secret" has been used way too often to justify significant Civil liberties abuses. Privacy is just as important a right as self defense.